ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2024A-05397-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-25
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Jill Dorenbush,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Ultimate Pro Heating & Cooling, LLC
ROC License No. 324753,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-05397-RFA-LS-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 22, 2025 at 9:00 AM.
APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Mona Baskin, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) with Madelyn Hayes as a witness. Jill Dorenbush (“Complainant”) appeared on her own behalf. No appearance(s) by or on behalf of Ultimate Pro Heating & Cooling LLC (“Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Exhibits 1-10 were admitted into the evidentiary record.
_____________________________________________________________________
After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director of the Registrar.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-117, Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website. On June 08, 2019, the Registrar issued ROC License No. 324753 to Respondent for Specialty Dual CR-39 Air Conditioning and Refrigeration contracting. Although the license was renewed through June 30, 2025, on August 23, 2024, the license was revoked by the Registrar. Thomas Joseph Murray Jr. is listed as the Qualifying Party and Member on the license. Respondent’s address of record for the license is 1518 W, 1st Ave. Ste. 130 Mesa, Arizona 85202. The license reflects discipline by the Registrar on one (1) prior disciplinary occasions, which is presumed to be related to this matter.
On or about June 09, 2024, the Registrar received a narrative complaint from Complainant against Respondent’s ROC License No. 324753 alleging poor workmanship of a $20,000.00 residential HVAC project. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2024-05397 and assigned to Patricia Schuette (“Investigator Schuette”) for investigation.
On June 03, 2024, Investigator Schuette conducted a review of the contract executed between the parties, took 12 photographs, and inspected the work that had been performed on the project to date. Respondent was not present. When she was finished, Investigator Schuette drafted her Jobsite Inspection Notes. Ultimately, Investigator Schuette derived eleven (11) separate and distinct complaint items from Complaint No. 2024-05397, nine (9) of which she was able to substantiate based on her firsthand observations. Specifically, Investigator Schuette concluded that the work Respondent had performed on complaint items 3-11 failed to meet the Registrar’s minimum workmanship standards, and specifically noted the following:
Complainant mentioned that the Respondent has recently passed away. With some of the work that was done it is likely that a permit should have been pulled by the city of Queen Creek.
(Emphasis in original.)
On June 05, 2024, Investigator Schuette issued a Written Directive from the Registrar (“Directive”) to Respondent because she substantiated most of Complainant’s workmanship allegations against Respondent. The Directive put Respondent on notice that the licensee had until 5:00 p.m. on June 20, 2024, to notify the Registrar of its compliance with the Directive or face discipline pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) §§ 32-1154(A), 32-1154(A)(22), and 32-1154(E). Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On an unknown date, Investigator Schuette forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s legal department with the issuance of a Citation Recommendation.
On June 25, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for an alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(2)(b), 32-1154(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a), and 32-1154(A)(22). Respondent was given until July 10, 2024, to respond with its Answer or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(22) and 32-1155.
On July 23, 2024, because Respondent failed to submit a timely Answer to the aforementioned Citation, the Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order (Default) (“Default Order”) to Respondent which suspended ROC License No. 3224753 pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154 and 32-1155 for two (2) days, effective July 30, 2024, and assessed a $250.00 civil penalty.
On December 13, 2024, Complainant submitted a petition for payment from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (“Fund”) to the Registrar, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1132(A) and 32-1154(G).
On an unknown date, the Registrar received copies of Complainants’ Deed of Trust and Warranty Deed. Attached, Complainant included a copy of a $4,250.00 bond payout from Old Republic Surety Company dated December 04, 2024, Warranty Deed, and her underlying contract with Respondent and proof of payments. Complainant also provided proof of two (2) payments made to AZ Chill LLC, totaling $2,080.00, for remediating Respondent’s poor work.
On June 11, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award (“Notice of Award”) to the parties which held that Complainant was ineligible for a payout from the Fund.
On June 12, 2025, the Registrar received a timely appeal letter from Complainant which argued, overall, that she wanted a payout from the Recovery Fund in order to cover purchase and installation costs of two (2) new air conditioning units.
On June 27, 2025, the Registrar referred 2024A-05397-RFA-LS-ROC to OAH for an independent evidentiary hearing. Per the Notice of Action sent to the parties on July 07, 2025, the issues for hearing are to determine whether Complainant’s denial of an award from the Fund was properly determined pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1132 to 32-1133.01 and 32-1154(F), as justified by the evidence.
On August 22, 2025, an administrative evidentiary hearing took place before OAH.
Hearing Evidence
At the hearing, the Registrar called Madelyn Hayes as a witness. Complainant testified on her own behalf. Although afforded a ten (10) minute grace period, there was no appearance by or on behalf of Respondent, or a Motion to Continue or appear via alternative means submitted on their behalf. The substantive evidence is as follows:
Complainant own single family residential property located at 19160 E. Oriole Way Queen Creek, Arizona 85142.
On or about May 28, 2022, the parties entered into a $20,000.00 construction contract for the installation of a 5-ton 18-19.5 SEER gas split air conditioning unit.
The one-day project took place on June 02, 2022.
On June 06, 2022, Complainant tendered a $20,000.00 in full to Respondent for the project.
Although ROC License No. 324753 was active and in good standing with the Registrar from June 05, 2024, to June 20, 2024, Respondent did not perform any corrective work on substantiated complaint items 3-11, or enter into a settlement agreement with Complainant. At no point in time prior to the expiration of the Directive’s compliance period, or anytime thereafter, did Respondent request an extension thereof.
Complainant testified that she appealed the underlying Notice of Award because (1) she felt very unsafe with the unit installed by Respondent and feared that no amount of repairs would “fix” it, and (2) she was advised by AZ Chill LLC that it would cost $28,000.00 to replace Respondent’s work with two (2) new units. Complainant testified that it was unfair for her to be required to remediate Respondent’s workmanship further or live in constant worry for her and her family’s safety.
Additional Evidence
Ms. Hayes is a Legal Assistant II for the Registrar. Ms. Hayes made the determination that Complainant was eligible to access the Fund, but ineligible to qualify for an administrative payout from the Fund because Complainant did not suffer any “actual damages.” Specifically, Ms. Hayes determined the following:
Complainant own and occupies the residential property at issue.
Respondent’s license was active and in good standing with the Registrar when the underlying contract was entered into, when Respondent performed the underlying work in question, as well as when Respondent first received payment from Complainant for the project.
Complainant paid the contract in full. As such, there was no unpaid remaining balance between the parties.
As a result of Complaint No. 2024-05397 being filed with the Registrar, ROC License No. 324753 was suspended for a period of two (2) days and assessed a civil penalty by the Registrar.
Complainant paid AZ Chill LLC $2,080.00 to correct Respondent’s workmanship on the underlying project.
Complainant received a $4,250.00 bond payout from Respondent’s insurance company.
Although Ms. Hayes did not confer with Investigator Schuette regarding the corrective work performed by AZ Chill LLC, she independently verified that the work was in line with the Directive and therefore deemed it, and its associated costs, reasonable.
Ultimately, Ms. Hayes calculated Complainant’s compensable damages by subtracting her full payment from the original contract price. She then took note of the total monies paid to AZ Chill LLC to correct the work at issue, and subtracted monies received from Respondent’s bond company, which resulted in a negative amount of -$2,170.00 in actual damages.
Ms. Hayes testified that the purpose of the Fund was to make homeowners aggrieved by licensees “whole,” and that Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1131 et seq. was specifically limited to the cost of actual construction work, labor and materials – which, in Complainant’s case, was $0.00 because she received more from Respondent’s bond company than she paid in repairs. Ms. Hayes also clarified that Investigator Schuette never directed Respondent to replace the project materials, so Complainant’s request to do so was unfounded and unsupported by the record.
Neither party independently confirmed whether Thomas Joseph Murray Jr. was deceased. Administrative Notice is taken that a local resident bearing the same given and surname as Mr. Murray Jr. is noted as passing on August 06, 2023, in Mesa, Arizona.
Closing Arguments
In closing, the Registrar opined that Complainant failed to sustain her burden of proof and that her appeal should be denied. Ultimately, the Registrar opined that it had satisfied its fiduciary duty to comply with the pertinent sections of the law and protect the purpose of the Fund.
In closing, Complainant argued that Respondent’s work still remains an issue for her and her family, as it the air-conditioning has stopped working during the heat of Arizona’s summer, and she stays in a constant state of fear that something far worse could happen. Complainant reiterated he opinion that replacement was the only available remedy to address her concerns, and that the Registrar should assist because it licensed the entity that was the source of poor workmanship.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The matter was properly brought before OAH.
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.
Complainant bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Registrar’s Recover Fund claim award, or denial thereof, was incorrect and/or improperly issued. The Registrar bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation by the same evidentiary standard.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1131 et seq., in order to be eligible to access the Recovery Fund an applicant must meet specific eligibility criteria. An individual is eligible for an award from the residential contractors’ recovery fund if they both: (1) own residential real property that is damaged by the failure of a residential contractor to adequately build or improve a residential structure or appurtenance, and (2) actually occupy or intend to occupy the residential real property as the individual’s primary residence. Additionally, the applicant must have contracted with a residential contractor who was appropriately licensed either at the time of contract execution, when the first payment on the project was made, or when the work on the project first began.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(F) provides that “if a contractor’s license has been revoked or has been suspended as a result of an order to remedy a violation of this chapter the registrar may order payment from the residential contractors’ recovery fund to remedy the violation.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1132.01 provides, in pertinent part, that an award from the Recovery Fund “[m]ay not exceed the actual damages suffered” and also “[m]ay not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure.” “Actual damages” means the reasonable cost of completing the contract and repairing the contractor’s defective performance, minus the part of the contract price still unpaid. The maximum individual award from the Recovery Fund is $30,000.00.
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice. In interpreting a statute, “[w]e first consider the language of the statute and, if it is unclear, turn to other factors, including ‘the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose.” “In applying a statute its words are to be given their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.”
The Tribunal is required to apply equitable principles when rendering decisions. The application of equity entails offering a remedy to avoid an unconscionable or unjust result.
In the case at bar, however, a detailed factual analysis is not necessary because Complainant failed to present any compelling evidence at hearing. The underlying property is owned by Complainant as a primary residence, Complainant paid the contract in full, and Respondent’s license was active and in good standing with the Registrar during all relevant times. Most notably, ROC License No. 324753 was disciplined by the Registrar for failing to answer the related Citation issues regarding Respondent’s poor workmanship and failure to address the Directive. The Default Order against ROC License No. 316232 became effective on July 23, 2024, making Complainant’s June 12, 2025, Fund claim submission timely.
The only outstanding issue is that of the payout Complainant received from Respondent’s bond company, a reduction of which had to be taken per statute. Here, the Registrar correctly calculated that the amount of monies Complainant obtained from Respondent’s bond far exceeded the amount of monies she tendered to correct Respondent’s poor workmanship. Thus, Complainant suffered no “actual damages.”
Notably, Complainant did not dispute Ms. Hayes’ testimony regarding the calculation of compensable damages in this matter. As such, it must be held that Complainant failed to sustain its burden of proof in this matter.
Therefore, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge must conclude that Complainant was properly denied an administrative payout from the Fund.
Thusly, Complainant’s appeal must be denied.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Registrar affirm the Fund’s June 11, 2025, Notice of Award.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Registrar dismiss Complainant’s appeal.
NOTICE
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, August 26, 2025.
Office of Administrative Hearings
/s/Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
c/o Legal Department
Registrar of Contractors
1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Mona Baskin, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General, Counsel for the Registrar
2005 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85004
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Ultimate Pro Heating & Cooling, LLC, Respondent
1815 W. 1st Ave., Ste. 130
Mesa, AZ 85202
[email redacted]
Jill Dorenbush, Complainant
19160 E. Oriole Way
Queen Creek, AZ 85142
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff